On October 6th H&D hosted our latest John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston. As with all previous such events, this was very widely advertised in advance and reported afterwards both on this website and in the current edition of H&D. All of the speeches were professionally filmed and are publicly available on YouTube.

The John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston, October 2017

Nevertheless a television production company sent two young female journalists ‘undercover’ into the meeting, where they secretly filmed speeches that would in any case be broadcast in full on our YouTube channel. Unfortunately these ‘undercover journalists’ – who used the names Mary McShane and Mary Mead – also claim to have recorded private conversations with members of the audience at the bar and in cars travelling from the event.

H&D greatly regrets this invasion of privacy. While our own editor and assistant editor have not said anything in private that we would not say in public, we of course have no idea what members of the audience might say in their own private conversations, especially when these are recorded, edited and taken out of context by journalists.

‘Undercover reporter’ using the name Mary McShane at the October 2017 JTMM in Preston

We would emphasise the following points in reply to allegations contained in a letter sent to our assistant editor by the production company (allegations which may or may not be featured in the programme):

– Heritage & Destiny is a non-partisan journal reflecting a wide spectrum of nationalist ideas. Particular articles in the magazine should not be taken as reflecting an editorial line or shared ideology, still less should it be assumed that H&D promotes any particular position or agenda held by authors of such articles.

– Events hosted by H&D similarly reflect a broad range of ideas – as should be obvious from the fact that such speakers often disagree with each other on particular issues and represent diverse parties and groups.

– The London Forum and allied forums in various parts of the UK again feature a diverse range of speakers – the clue is in the name “forum”.

– Some of the individuals featured in the forthcoming ITV programme have no connection whatever with H&D. For example, while we fully accept Anne Marie Waters right to her own opinions on Islam, and we deprecate attempts to silence her, there have been many articles critical of Ms Waters and her associates published both in the magazine and on this website. Within the broad spectrum of nationalist ideas represented by H&D, we have sometimes printed articles which conform with Ms Waters’ anti-Islam agenda, but most articles on this theme have been critical of her approach. In particular our assistant editor’s ‘Movement News’ column has been consistently critical of the EDL, Liberty GB and the rest of the ‘Islam-obsessed’ wing of nationalism.

Dr Jim Lewthwaite speaking at the 2017 JTMM

– It would be seriously defamatory to accuse our assistant editor of expressing sympathy with any form of terrorism during his speech at the October 6th meeting. What he did say (and repeated in the current edition of the magazine) was that the Terrorism Act makes a mockery of the English language in its designation of a wide range of purely political activities as ‘terrorist’. These concerns about the wide-ranging remit and potential injustice of the Terrorism Act are widely shared across the political spectrum. Serious criminal charges have emerged against some individuals since the October 6th meeting. None of those individuals was present at the meeting, and for obvious legal reasons we cannot comment further at this time.

– Our assistant editor did indeed state at the October 6th meeting that Ernst Zündel, Ursula Haverbeck and others prosecuted under Germany’s notorious laws suppressing free historical research will be seen as “heroes of the Europe of the future”. Their alleged crimes are not in any way illegal in this country. H&D does not promote any particular interpretation of Second World War history, and indeed some articles in H&D have suggested that nationalists should avoid association with historical revisionism (while others have argued that defence of academic and political freedom is central to our cause).

– As regards the Brexit referendum, there can be little doubt that concerns over immigration were the main motivation for many (arguably most) pro-Brexit voters. It should be noted however that a significant minority of British nationalists took a pro-Remain stance in last year’s referendum, and this debate was featured in the magazine.

– In short, to draw “links” between diverse individuals and groups attending a meeting/forum (and in some cases between individuals who have never met or had anything to do with each other) is at best absurd and at worst defamatory.

German lawyer and political philosopher Horst Mahler, 81, has escaped the German state’s efforts to imprison him under their notorious ‘incitement’ law. He is now seeking political asylum in a safe country.

His reincarceration was due today, but yesterday Horst Mahler escaped from the Federal Republic.

Horst Mahler explains:

I owe an explanation as to why I refuse to comply with Mr Nötzel, the public prosecutor in Munich, who has summoned me back to prison under his regiment.I have pressed charges against Mr Nötzel at the same public prosecutor’s office where he is employed, for attempting to murder me in prison. Expecting my demise, the police had already prepared a ban on demonstrations for the city of Brandenburg, where the prison is located.On July 29, 2015, after five and a half years in prison, I had physically collapsed in my prison cell.This was after I had been given the contraindicated drug salicylate vaseline as a treatment for my open wound on the heel of my left diabetic foot.As a consequence of this treatment, I suffered blood-poisoning. The symptoms caused my referral to Brandenburg’s Asklepios Clinic, where I received medical care at the intensive care unit.The doctors diagnosed, I quote: “A terminal illness.”Regardless of this, the accused public prosecutor, who was in charge of my case, enforced my referral to the secluded unit for prisoners at the Brandenburg clinic.As a result of this referral, my condition deteriorated rapidly, so that my left leg, which was affected with erysipelas (bacterial infection of the skin), had to be amputated up to the knee.My life was saved only thanks to my wife’s vigorous efforts to obtain my referral to the intensive care unit at Asklepios clinic. Thanks to Gerard Menuhin’s mediation, she had succeeded in getting the Swiss weekly paper “Weltwoche” interested in my case.In a long article, they drew international attention to this scandal.I explained all this in my letter to the state prosecutor Munich II, dated February 9, 2017. Adding further scandalous details, I expressed my suspicion of attempted homicide.Considering the underlying, base motives, attempted murder must be taken into consideration!The responsible public prosecutor’s office, which is simultaneously the scene of the crime, has not acted upon my charges against the accused.Instead, they revoked my parole and summoned me back to prison by April 19, 2017 at the latest, without obtaining a medical opinion on whether or not I am fit to serve my prison sentence.As long as the judicial offers in charge have not been held accountable, and as long as they are involved in my case, I refuse to comply with their summons!As this use of force against me essentially represents a political persecution that has no legal basis, I am going to seek political asylum in a sovereign state that is willing to take me in.

In the current edition of Heritage and Destiny, Andy Ritchie reviews the new Hollywood film Denial, which purports to describe the libel contest between the British historian David Irving and his American Jewish critic Deborah Lipstadt, heard in London’s High Court during 2000.

In the essay below, published to mark the 88th birthday of the pioneering French revisionist researcher and author Professor Robert Faurisson, Andy Ritchie exposes the origins of the gas chamber story. After a detailed examination of documentary evidence, he concludes that the British wartime agencies PWE and SOE “certainly did invent stories about homicidal gassings – the inventions were circulated long before any such gassings are now alleged to have taken place”.

Updates and additional information related to this story will appear on this page as further research material becomes available.

For more than thirty years, historians have been aware of once-secret memoranda by senior British intelligence official Victor Cavendish-Bentinck in which he casts doubt on the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers by National Socialist Germany. Writing to Whitehall colleagues at the end of August 1943, Cavendish-Bentinck used dismissive language which today in most European countries would undoubtedly see him prosecuted for “Holocaust denial”.

During the trial of British historian David Irving’s libel action against Deborah Lipstadt in 2000 (now dramatised in the Hollywood film Denial) some of Cavendish-Bentinck’s remarks were raised by Irving as justification of his claim that the gas chamber story originated as a propaganda lie. In his judgment against Irving, Mr Justice Gray accepted the counter-arguments of Lipstadt’s defence team. Their interpretation has since appeared in a book by Prof. Sir Richard Evans, who was among Lipstadt’s defence witnesses.

Seventeen years on from the Irving-Lipstadt trial, it is now possible to access a broader range of British documents, including intelligence material. In this essay I shall attempt to clarify what these documents tell us about the role of British propaganda and intelligence in relation to the initial allegations of homicidal gassing by National Socialist Germany.

The conclusions can be briefly summarised:

Britain’s Political Warfare Executive and its predecessor first deployed stories of homicidal gassing as part of propaganda efforts in two areas unconnected to treatment of Jews. Their objective was to spread dissension and demoralisation among German soldiers and civilians, and among Germany’s allies.

Partly because they knew of these earlier propagandist initiatives, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck and his British intelligence colleague Roger Allen disbelieved later stories that homicidal gas chambers had been used to murder Poles and Jews. They succeeded in having these allegations removed from the draft of a joint Anglo-American Declaration on German Crimes in Poland, published on 30th August 1943.

The circumstances of Prof. Faurisson’s trial were explained at a meeting of the London Forum in July 2016 by Lady Michèle Renouf, who was the sole defence witness alongside Prof. Faurisson at his Paris trial.

In September 2016 Prof. Faurisson was convicted under the French “racial hatred” law for the 60-word sentence translated below: the Paris court taking the extraordinary view that his reference to “the State of Israel and international Zionism” amounted to an illegal attack on Jews as a “race”.

For this “offence” Prof. Faurisson received a 4 month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €4,000. He was ordered in addition to pay €5,000 in compensation and costs to LICRA, a French association combatting “racism and anti-semitism”.

Two additional charges under the French “Gayssot Act” prohibiting “Holocaust denial”, which related specifically to Prof. Faurisson’s Tehran conference speech, were set aside.

Prof. Faurisson immediately announced his intention to appeal against this latest conviction: an appeal which is of the highest importance for historical and political researchers worldwide, and in particular for anyone campaigning against the policies of the Israeli Government. It would seem that the latest judgement opens the way for any robust criticism of Israel to be criminalised in France as anti-Jewish “racial hatred”, even if neither Jews nor Judaism have been mentioned!

Further reports and analysis of this case will appear in the next edition of Heritage and Destiny.

An earlier interview with Prof. Robert Faurisson can be seen below (including English subtitles), in which he explains the background to his famous 60-word French sentence summarising his research conclusions. Prof. Faurisson’s words (again criminalised by the Paris court this week), read in English:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”